Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWalker, Aaron
dc.date2021-11-25T13:36:28.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T12:29:00Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T12:29:00Z
dc.date.issued2015-11-09T08:48:06-08:00
dc.identifierylpr/vol19/iss1/19
dc.identifier.contextkey7819954
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/16915
dc.description.abstractAlmost fifty years ago, Thurgood Marshall looked upon the work of his staff with disappointment. He was preparing to argue for a second time before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown J), and the brief William Ming, Jr., and Alfred Kelly had prepared was lacking. It argued that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were sufficiently idealistic to intend that all racial discrimination on the part of the states, including segregation, would be rendered illegal under the Equal Protection Clause. The problem was that the brief was unpersuasive and vague; "there was nothing concrete in it.",
dc.title"No Distinction Would Be Tolerated": Thaddeus Stevens, Disability, and the Original Intent of the Equal Protection Clause
dc.source.journaltitleYale Law & Policy Review
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T12:29:00Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol19/iss1/19
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=ylpr&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
22_19YaleL_PolyRev265_2000_.pdf
Size:
2.353Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record